Sorry about "rant." But I do think your historical account mixes some superficial facts with a number of half-truths.

But I'll try one more time to come to some understanding. You're right if your point is that racism, political violence, or white supremacy have not been confined historically to one side of the political spectrum. I would say that the Nazis, the KKK, et al. can be accurately categorized as right-wing, but that point of taxonomy shouldn't matter very much to us today (unless your're a political scientist, maybe). Thus it find it very worrisome that some commentators today in the US seem to be reluctant to condemn violent racists just because they'd have to take a break from hitting their preferred punching bags on the other side, whatever they call them (the left, Dems, BLM, and so on).

There's no reason that Identifying with the contemporary US right should make anyone slow to denounce racism, and in these circumstances the tu quoque defense should be repugant to any decent American regardless of his/her politics.

Right, but as SJRking suggests, it's important to recognize that generating a conflict that can be portrayed as 'bad, violent people on both sides' is integral to the strategies of both the alt-right types themselves AND the (far) right media, which is willing to use even a KKK rally that got someone killed as an opportunity to provoke distrust and loathing of the left.

Tough to pull off Dictator-level satire with a tweet. Brian's error (as I see it) has something to do with the limitations of the medium. And the subject matter only raises the degree of difficulty. Maybe there was a good idea behind the original tweet, but if so the execution was poor, in my view.

The lack of taste was a huge issue. But it seems that DB left with no friends because he treated just about everyone as badly as he could get away with (and often he didn't get away with it--see those emails). That adds up to some species of bad person--surely something less than a parricide or rapist, but whether you'd say "piece of shit" or "asshole" is just splitting hairs.

I agree with just about all of it in principle. But it's not written in a very professional way. Far too many exclamation points, just to start (like a 12-year-old's diary). If the authors want it to be taken seriously they should use a more formal style, whch could still convey the severity of the issue.

I think what many of believe is that by appealing to the die-hard, tradition-obsessed, quasi-purist crowd, the AD might build the "brand" in such a way as to make the experience more appealling to all. You can't compete with TV by being "better" in terms of the visuals and the convenience. You have to be different from TV, the NFL, etc. You have to cultivate what makes (or once made, if only in our imaginations) Michigan special.

It's sad that the sooges in charge of the AD are so tone-deaf that they can't about the "brand" except in narrow, short-sighted way.

Okak, that could be so. Is that common knowledge? And is that what the author of the post meant? In the context of this article, it seems like it should have some bearing on Fisher's coaching ability. Still not clear if it's supposed to be a credit or detriment to him.

"In the aftermath Fisher decided to take the team to Europe, an experience that was lost on his wards."

I found this a bit puzzling. Does it mean that it was a bad decision to take the trip? That the players didn't appreciate or profit from it? If so, why is that true? I recall Jalen speaking about the trip in the Fab Five documentary, but, if memory serves, he was positive about it, culture-shock notwithstanding.

I agree. I think the rule could make an impact because it would give defenses confidence that they could substitute as long as they did it in fewer than 10 secs. The fear of getting burned by a quick snap is lessened, if not removed. That certainty would, I assume, make it easier to practice for facing the hurry-up as well.